The Richfield Township Trustee Meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm on October 14, 2002.

Roll Call: Trustees: Present – Shano Cica-Mraz, Laurie Gilmore, Robert Hooper
Clerk/Treasurer: Mark Uhrich

Others present: Linda Bowmer-Office Administrator, Police Chief Canter, Laurie Pinney – Zoning Inspector and Kurt Kocias Zoning Commission.

Ms. Cica-Mraz made a motion to approve the September 23, 2002 Regular Trustee meeting minutes seconded by Ms. Gilmore; motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Cica-Mraz made a motion to approve the October 11, 2002 Special Trustee meeting minutes seconded by Ms. Gilmore; motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Cica-Mraz made a motion to approve warrant report 7242 to 7304 seconded by Ms. Gilmore; motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Mraz reviewed the upcoming Richfield Township Trustee meetings: The December 23, 2002 scheduled meeting is cancelled; an organizational meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003; and the first regular meeting for 2003 is scheduled for January 13.

Ms. Mraz indicated that Chief Canter is approaching his first year anniversary with our community. Chief Canter was recently recognized by Ohio State Attorney General and received a prestigious Distinguished Law Enforcement award.

Ms. Pinney – The Zoning Commission has asked the Trustees to review a zoning matter that has come to her attention. The matter revolves around the R-4 district located in the Glencairn development. Also, the Zoning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on October 22 at 6:30 p.m. to review this zoning matter.

Ms. Bowmer – The Township has created a Fact Sheet pertaining to the upcoming Road and Bridge levy and noted this information could be found on the Township Web page. Ms. Mraz encourages the residents to review this information. The NPDES meeting of the Summit County Soil and Water board will take place next week. Ms. Mraz indicated that Laurie Pinney will attend.

Mr. Peter Henderson of the Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council (CVCC) spoke – The CVCC conducts its business through the use of task forces. Currently there are two task forces in place: The Deer Management and the Gypsy Moth. The CVCC conducts regular meetings four times a year. He is soliciting feedback from the Trustees and the public:

Ms. Nagwa Ahlborg, 4760 Streetsboro Road, Does the CVCC have a task force to study West Nile Virus? How can we eliminate the sources of mosquitoes?
Mr. Henderson – No, but the Park does spray for mosquitoes. The spray we use is non-toxic to humans. Eliminate standing water, such as in catch basins.
Ms. Mraz – Could the CVCC study the health and environmental impact of insecticides that are applied in the valley?
Mr. Henderson – OK, I’ll take this request back to the board.

Mr. David Whited of the Metro Parks for Summit County spoke – There is a .85 replacement levy up for renewal this fall.  I encourage the residents of Summit County to vote for Issue 11! He cited the Park’s five year goal: To preserve open spaces, buy new land, develop new and existing parks, expand hike and bike trails and build educational waysides. The park system has 96 full-time employees, over 8,600 acres of land in 11 developed parks, 32 hike and bike trails and maintains 13 miles of Towpath. Our park has over 4.4 million visits a year and is the second oldest park system in Ohio. Richfield Township has the second largest park in the district, Furnace Run. There will be a Public Meeting held at Furnace Run Park on October 29, 2002, to discuss resource planning; he encourages the residents to attend.
Ms. Ruth Jocek, Village Richfield Recreation Department, Furnace Run Park is a wonderful asset to our community, and offered her support and encouragement to vote for Issue 11!

Ms. Jocek, Richfield Village Recreation Department and Park Board, spoke about their vision of recreation in Richfield and the desire to have the Township as recreation board partner. The findings from the recent recreational survey indicated there is strong support, 94 % in the Township and 98% in the Village, for a recreation facility in Richfield. The Village is trying to implement an integrated bike path plan through the area. In future road projects, she encouraged the Township and Summit County to pave roads wide enough to accommodate bike paths. The goal is to connect all the neighborhoods in Richfield and link up to Bath and the park system. The community will likely need more space for baseball diamonds and soccer fields. Ms. Mraz and Ms. Jocek agreed to schedule a work session to discuss the development of park and recreation areas of our communities. Also, the new Recreation center is scheduled to open October 21 at the old BCI building located at 3333 Brecksville Road.

Ms. Mraz introduced Laurie Pinney, Zoning Inspector and Kurt Kocias, Zoning Commission. The Zoning Commission (ZC) is a five member board with one alternate. She then outlined the procedure the Trustees will follow regarding the R-4 zoning matter on tonight’s agenda:

Any change to a developer’s plan in an R-4 district must go through the ZC. The ZC requested that the Trustees and the Board of Zoning Appeals place this matter on their agenda for review and written recommendations to the Zoning Commission. The Zoning Inspector will take the written recommendation she receives from the ZC and make a final decision then it goes to the Summit County Planning Board. The Summit County Planning will have the final say in this matter. Tonight the Trustee’s are simply gathering facts about this matter in preparation for a written recommendation. Mr. Jim Biggar, Denny Kolp and Neil Brennan represent the interests of the builder and developer of the property.

This matter came to the Township’s attention as construction of the Turnberry phase of the Glencairn project started. Possible zoning code violations were suspected. These matters were brought to the developer’s attention. Richfield Township identified at least six points of possible violation and as they understand this matter, Ms. Mraz and Ms. Pinney would like the developer to address these six points. Tonight’s forum will address these six points. The developers will be asked to respond to each item. Then the meeting will be open for public feedback and questions.

Ms. Mraz emphasized that Richfield Township can only respond and take action in a very limited manner as prescribed in the R-4 zoning code. Ms. Mraz and Ms. Pinney presented each of the following issues:

1) Single Entity Control – Ownership of the Turnberry phase was transferred from Glencairn to Petros Homes, et. al. Does Glencairn still maintain single entity control?

Mr. Biggar – Gave a brief review of the development of the Glencairn project. Back in 1992 the original plan was for 390 acres, 194 single family houses (SFH), and 190 cluster houses (CH) with 98 acres of green space. The plan was revised in June of 2001 to 390 acres, 155 SFH, 190 CH and 144 acres of green space. R-4 allows us to build with a density of 1 unit per acre and allows for flexible construction plans.

Mr. Biggar continues: the single entity control issue allows “…and Successors to follow…” and so the purchaser (Petros) is the successor. Also, the purchase agreement of January 2001 states that Glencairn maintains control of the project. The Trustees have a copy of second amendment to our purchase agreement that confirms who has control.

Mr. Brennan (Petros representative) – The seller (Glencairn) will be the exclusive authority on matters related to the zoning code.

Ms. Mraz – We need to get a legal definition of the term “successors” and this issue needs a full and comprehensive review. We will reserve the right to judge this issue after gathering more information and a review with counsel.

Mr. Slagter, Richfield Township attorney, noted that there is no definition of single entity control found in the Township’s zoning code. Purchase agreements between sellers and buyers are not recorded on the deeds. If applicable, this should be recorded on the Plat.

Mr. Biggar – no problem - we would accept recording this information on the Plat.

2) Turnberry Approval – It appears that the Turnberry phase is a “stand alone” sub-division and therefore is in violation of applicable zoning codes. Richfield Township never approved a Turnberry development project.

Mr. Biggar – In our early phases of this development we had the Glencoe Phase and the Chapelton Phase. We have changed the Plat to address this issue; it now reads “Glencairn Forest Turnberry Phase 1”. We believe we have remedied this matter.

3) Secondary Access – Our safety forces and Summit County determined that a secondary access was needed to serve the Glencairn development in a change reviewed in June 2001. Concern is that the secondary access may not occur since the Turnberry phase appears to be a “stand alone” development and not connected to the rest of Glencairn Forest project.

Mr. Biggar – Secondary access will occur when Phase 5 of the plan approved by Summit County (Phase 9 & 10 of the Glencairn Forest project) is completed. We are following what Summit County recommended. We are providing an easement to the people of Glencairn so when the 24 foot wide Glentroll Road is built there will be secondary access.

Mr. Kolp – When the private drive Glentrol Road is complete, the secondary access road will connect Glencairn and Turnberry.

Ms. Mraz – what happens if Glentrol Road is not built?

Mr. Slagter – Building in phases is typical for construction projects, but our safety forces and residents have concerns about no secondary access road. Richfield Township may request Summit County require a performance bond to be posted to ensure that this road is ultimately constructed.

4) Open Space – R-4 zoning requires a minimum of 25% green space in the planned unit development.

Mr. Biggar – Glencairn development has 144 acres of green space which is approximately 40% of the total acreage, so this requirement is met.

Ms. Gilmore – This issue also relates to Single Entity Control. Can Turnbery residents use the green space?

Mr. Biggar – explained that this is a Homeowners Association matter not a zoning code matter.

Ms. Gilmore – But the Turnberry residents cannot use green space? Right?

Mr. Biggar – Turnberry residents would not be able to use the “improved” spaces, such as the tennis courts, playground and pavilion.

Ms. Pinney – Are the improved spaces calculated in the total green space number you presented?

Mr. Kolp – Yes.

Mr. Biggar – But these improved areas only amount to less than two acres. Glencairn residents pay $500.00 a year for green space and improvement sites; the Turnberry residents would pay $100.00 a year and only get access to the green spaces not the improved sites.

5) Homeowner Association – Turnberry residents will pay $100.00 a year for access to the green space areas. Ms. Pinney indicated that the Homeowner Association issue may not be a zoning matter. But the residents that are not afforded the same rights nor have their rights protected may be a matter for the township to look into. Also, in the future Turnberry residents may have these rights denied. This matter is interrelated to the single entity control issue.

Mr. Brennan – The Turnberry residents and their Homeowner Association can vote on matters that affect them.

Mr. Biggar – When Turnberry residents buy their lot they will be made aware of all matters related to their ownership.

Mr. Brennan – This may be a future zoning issue but not now. There is no change to the intent of the code.

Mr. Biggar – We volunteered the installation of the tennis courts and playground.

Ms. Mraz – Were you going to restrict the use of these facilities?

Mr. Biggar – Yes, but it is not a zoning issue.

Ms. Mraz – We have to be concerned about the residents’ future rights and protecting those rights. What can the Township do to control this issue?

Mr. Slagter – It appears that a Homeowner Association can control the green space. Open space must be physically situated in the development.

Mr. Biggar – No open space less than one acre counts towards the calculation percentage of green space.

6) Cluster vs. Single Family Lots – In cluster homes, typically the footprint of the lot is the same for the building. The new lots drawn for Turnberry appear as single family lots, which must be at least one acre and the ones on the current plan are not one acre. There are no setback requirements in the code except cluster homes must set back at least 20 feet from the curb.

Mr. Brennan – The lots are shown as envelopes, with the original plan for 33 cluster homes, now there will be 25. The setback line in the envelope defines where a house can be built. He stated this plan meets the requirements as set forth in the zoning code.

Mr. Biggar – These cluster homes will be built 20 feet from the curb.

Ms. Pinney – OK, but what about the 15 foot minimum required between principal residents? What if an accessory building is constructed by the owner? Two cluster home developments had already been completed in Glencairn with green space within them, and this is what we have envisioned with all cluster home development on this project.

Mr. Biggar – We have control and it will meet the zoning code requirements.

Ms. Mraz – Why were these lots set up like single family?

Mr. Slagter – Single family lots decrease green space.

Mr. Brennan – In an effort to promote more common green space.

Ms. Pinney – There is no rear setback limitation.

Mr. Kolp – The layout of the lots was for convenience, approximately 70 by 100 or .2 acre in size. All cluster homes have frontage on the street; they all fit the required criteria.

Ms. Pinney – The 2001 plan was approved, but this plan deviates from that plan.

Mr. Biggar – As much green space as possible is going in. The lots were drawn as rectangles instead of irregular sizes.

Mr. Kolp – The plan is approved by Richfield Township and Summit County. Look at the original plans.

Ms. Mraz – Ms. Pinney please review the original plans to verify.

Ms. Mraz conferred with the Trustees and the Trustees agreed to take a ten minute break. A break from 9:20 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. occurred.

Citizen’s Forum:

Mr. Crisalli, 3635 McDonald Circle, What does Mr. Biggar need to control to prove single entity control?

Ms. Pinney – The Zoning Commission may be able to better answer that question. The township cannot control items such as: architecture, building materials, and different types of housing. But we would look for continuity as cluster homes have already been built in Glencairn. We would expect the same for the new cluster homes.

Mr. Dave Dickens, 3400 Glencoe, Can Mr. Biggar control Petros? Does he have veto authority over Petros? We only own the footprint not the lot. The Homeowner Association charges $500.00 and the cluster home association charges $280.00 and Mr. Biggar can veto anything from the associations.

Mr. Ted Williams, 3933 Turnberry, There is no architectural review board to review this project. I am upset that there is no continuity between the existing development and the proposed project.

Mr. Mike Caporale, 3668 Shetland Trail, Does the township have an architectural review board? There are no vinyl sided houses in Glencairn, but vinyl is OK for the Turnberry project. These building materials are inconsistent within the existing development.

Ms. Pinney – No, the township cannot regulate items such as: architecture, building materials, and different types of housing.

Mr. Slagter – Unlike a city, a township does not have an architectural review board or the authority to regulate. We can regulate size and use of the home. We cannot regulate building materials. Open space must be appropriate and cannot be transferred.

Mr. Hooper – Will Mr. Biggar have veto power when Ryan Homes builds houses in this development? It goes back to the single entity control issue.

Ms. Mraz – We must look at the zoning issue as they relate to R-4 zoning code.

Mr. Barry Levinson, 3475 E. Glencoe, If Mr. Biggar controls the Turnberry phase and they do pay into the Homeowner Association or pay lower fees, can other homeowners opt out of the association and not choose to use the tennis courts or playground to also get a reduced fee?

Mr. Charles Brinkman, 3400 Robert Burns Drive, The trustees will be setting a precedent with their recommendation and I urge them to protect the residents. The trustees are the voice of the people on this matter. I encourage you to get a copy of the developer’s operating and purchase agreements. You must review these documents. Please delay your decision until I and the rest of us have an opportunity to review these documents and confer with our attorneys.

Ms. Pinney reminded the residents that any record the township has is a public record and is available for review.

Mr. Stu Waite, 3591 West Galloway, Thanked Ms. Pinney for a great job and all her hard work and keeping the residents apprized of this matter. We see Mr. Biggar putting out pumpkins and corn stalks to decorate the neighborhood; we know he cares, but look through our community - is this what Jim had in mind? I feel this matter comes down to who has single entity control.

Mr. Mike Slyka, 3506 Balmoral, Who was original property deeded to?

Mr. Slagter, I believe it was Glencairn Corp.

Mr. Slyka, when it was first sold was that considered a successor? When title transfers is that a successor? Has title transferred from Glencairn to somebody else?

Mr. Slagter, yes. The successor is someone who controls the planned residential development, not necessarily the owner.

Mr. Slyka, how did their status get elevated?

Mr. Slagter and Ms. Mraz – We need to determine if the plan is controlled by a single entity.

Mr. Crisalli, 3635 McDonald Circle, Stand alone or apart from Glencairn, what can you require to do to qualify this project as Glencairn?

Mr. Hooper – It appears as a separate subdivision, but we need to look at this very carefully. Ms. Pinney has dissected everything she can from the zoning code. It is our intent to try evaluating this and seeing if it is a unified plan.

Ms. Mraz – We are looking for single entity control. We are reviewing what we have received to date.

Ms. Nagwa Ahlborg, 4760 Streetsboro Road, What can the township do to ensure that the secondary access road is built? How is open space defined and calculated?

Ms. Mraz – The County Engineer has control of road construction process; however, we might be able to require a performance bond. Open space - We need to verify the figures provided to us by the developer and determine what “improved” / what is open space in the 144 acres.

Mr. DePiero, 3551 McCrea Lane, how did they get a permit for the sewer and water?

Ms. Mraz – This is a Village of Richfield matter as those items are part of the original Glencairn / Kinross agreement between the Village, Township and the developer.

Mr. Charles Brinkman, 3400 Robert Burns Drive, We need to see the operating agreement.

At the conclusion of the Public Forum, Ms. Mraz made a motion at 10:15 p.m. to enter into executive session to discuss pending litigation seconded by Ms. Gilmore, motion approved unanimously.

Ms. Mraz made a motion to end the executive session at 10:30 p.m., seconded by Mr. Hooper; motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Mraz – No decision will be made tonight. The trustees feel is it important to get more information from the developers. We feel we do not have all of the facts. We request that the developers submit any and all pertinent information regarding the Turnberry development and single entity control. It is up to the developers to determine what information the trustees can and should review so the burden of proof is on them. Mr. Slagter may fax over to Mr. Biggar a request list of basic information the trustees could use to assist them in reaching a recommendation for the Zoning Commission. The developer may redact any monetary information listed in the documents as to maintain confidentiality.

This matter will be put up for discussion at Special Trustee meeting. Ms. Mraz made a motion to schedule a Special Trustee Meeting for 6:00 p.m. on November 4, seconded by Mr. Hooper; motion carried unanimously. The Trustees will enter in to executive session at 6:00 p.m. and the Public meeting portion of the Special meeting will start at 7:00 p.m.

The Zoning Commission cannot act upon this matter until it receives the written recommendations from the Trustees as well as the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Biggar – What do want from us?

Ms. Mraz – Mr. Slagter will send you a basic list.

Mr. Mike Bukuts, 3599 McDonald Circle, can we submit items we want requested?

Mr. Stu Waite, 3591 West Galloway, can ask for deed restrictions?

Ms. Mraz – What ever you (the public) would like us to consider send us a list, let us know. We will evaluate these requests.

Ms. Mraz made a motion to conclude the meeting at 10:47 p.m., seconded by Mr. Hooper; motion carried unanimously.

_______________________ _________________________
Chairwoman Clerk

This page last updated on: 02/25/2006
Return to October Minutes